UN says U.S. has 'legal obligation' to fund agencies after Trump withdraws from several organisations

The United Nations' assertion that the U.S. has a "legal obligation" to fund its agencies, despite the Trump administration's withdrawals, brings to the forefront critical aspects of international relations, state sovereignty, and the future of global governance. This statement underscores the foundational principles upon which the UN and other multilateral organizations operate: the commitment of member states to collective action and shared responsibilities.

The **background context** for this issue lies in the historical role of the United States as a principal architect and financier of the post-World War II international order. Since its inception in 1945, the UN has relied heavily on assessed and voluntary contributions from its member states, with the U.S. consistently being the largest single contributor. However, the rise of nationalist sentiment and an "America First" foreign policy under the Trump administration led to a re-evaluation of U.S. commitments to various international bodies. This policy prioritized perceived national interests over multilateral engagement, viewing some international agreements and organizations as costly or infringing on U.S. sovereignty. This led to a series of withdrawals and funding cuts from several UN-related agencies and treaties.

**What happened** specifically involved the U.S. withdrawing from key international agreements and organizations. While the article mentions 31 UN-related agencies, prominent examples include the U.S. withdrawal from the UN Human Rights Council in June 2018, citing bias against Israel, and the cessation of funding to the UN Population Fund (UNFPA) in 2017, based on allegations (which UNFPA denies) that it supported coercive abortion programs. Crucially, the U.S. also announced its withdrawal from the Paris Agreement on climate change in June 2017 (effective November 2020), a landmark UN treaty. The UN's declaration of a "legal obligation" is rooted in the principle of *pacta sunt servanda* – agreements must be kept – a fundamental tenet of international law, enshrined in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969). This means that once a state ratifies a treaty or commits to funding mechanisms, it is legally bound to uphold those obligations, even if a subsequent administration changes its policy stance, unless specific withdrawal clauses are followed.

**Key stakeholders** in this scenario are primarily the **United Nations** itself, as the custodian of international peace and development, whose operational capacity is directly impacted by funding fluctuations. The **United States**, as the withdrawing party and historically the largest financial contributor, wields immense influence. Its decisions reverberate across the international system. **Other UN member states**, especially developing nations, are also significant stakeholders, as they are often the beneficiaries of UN programs in health, education, humanitarian aid, and climate action. Funding shortfalls can directly compromise their development goals and resilience. Finally, the **specific agencies** like UNFPA and the framework of the UN climate negotiations (UNFCCC/Paris Agreement) are directly affected, impacting their ability to fulfill their mandates.

**For India, this issue matters significantly** on multiple fronts. India is a staunch proponent of **multilateralism** and a rules-based international order. The weakening of UN agencies and a move towards unilateralism by major powers undermine the very framework that India champions for global governance and resolving shared challenges. Economically and socially, cuts to agencies like UNFPA can affect global health initiatives, including reproductive health and maternal care, which have ripple effects on India's own public health goals and regional stability. Environmentally, the U.S. withdrawal from the Paris Agreement was a major setback for global climate action. India, being highly vulnerable to climate change impacts and a committed signatory to the Paris Agreement, relies on robust international cooperation and financial mechanisms to achieve its ambitious climate targets (e.g., Net Zero by 2070). Politically, the financial instability of the UN could lead to a redistribution of burdens, potentially pressuring emerging economies like India to increase their contributions while facing reduced services or influence. India's consistent foreign policy stance, guided by **Article 51 of the Indian Constitution**, which mandates the promotion of international peace and security, fostering respect for international law and treaty obligations, directly aligns with the UN's position on state responsibility.

Historically, the U.S. has had a complex relationship with international organizations. While instrumental in creating the UN, it famously did not join the League of Nations. There have been previous instances of U.S. disengagement, such as its withdrawal from UNESCO in 1984 (rejoining in 2003, withdrawing again in 2017, and rejoining in 2023), often due to political disagreements or budgetary concerns. This pattern highlights a recurring tension between national sovereignty and international cooperation.

**Future implications** are far-reaching. Such actions by a major power set a precedent that could encourage other states to selectively disengage from international commitments, further eroding the stability and effectiveness of global governance. It creates financial uncertainty for vital humanitarian and development programs, potentially leaving vulnerable populations at greater risk. The long-term impact could be a more fragmented international system, less capable of addressing global challenges like pandemics, climate change, and economic crises. It also raises questions about the future funding model for the UN – whether it needs to diversify its revenue sources or if the burden will shift more heavily onto other major economies. The current U.S. administration under President Biden has largely reversed many of these withdrawals, rejoining the Paris Agreement and re-engaging with WHO, signaling a renewed commitment to multilateralism, but the underlying tensions and the precedent set remain significant for future administrations and global stability.

India's role as a rising global power and a consistent voice for multilateralism becomes even more critical in such a volatile international landscape, as it seeks to uphold the principles of international law and cooperation.